Judge to decide if Arizona abortion bill within law

The question of whether Arizona has the right to set its own qualifications for Medicaid providers is at the heart of a case now being considered by a federal judge.

Its outcome could have serious ramifications for Planned Parenthood of Arizona and could test the extent to which Arizona can assert its sovereignty over health-care rules.

Planned Parenthood sued the state after Gov. Jan Brewer this spring signed into law a bill that denies public dollars to any organization that includes abortions among its services.

It applies to the groups that contract with Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's Medicaid program.

Planned Parenthood contracts with some of the private providers who receive AHCCCS reimbursement, providing medical services such as contraceptives and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

AHCCCS does not cover abortion services except for those that are medically necessary.

In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood asked U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake to grant an injunction barring the law from going into effect. It has been on hold pending the outcome of Friday's court hearing.

Wake took the matter under advisement and will issue a ruling at a later date.

Planned Parenthood in court argued that the state cannot expand the definition of "qualified" medical providers, as the new law attempts to do. Since the federal government provides most of the Medicaid dollars, its standards apply, argued Alice Clapman, attorney for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Those qualifications require the health-care provider to have the medical training, experience and supplies to provide services, she said, as well as no record of fraudulent billing. Planned Parenthood meets those standards and the state has had no problem working with the agency for years, Clapman said.

But state attorneys argued that Arizona has the right to set its own standards, and House Bill 2800 reflects the intent of the Legislature to prevent taxpayer dollars from subsidizing abortions, said Stephen Aden, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom. He is working as a special assistant state attorney general for this case.

Aden argued that it's impossible to segregate the taxpayer money that flows to Planned Parenthood for women's health services from the money used to support the abortions the group provides. And that, he said, means Arizona taxpayers are subsidizing a service that state lawmakers have clearly said they do not endorse.

Wake grilled Aden on his argument, questioning whether such logic could be extended to other activities supported by state dollars. For example, Wake wondered, if the state decided it would take a stand against smoking, could Arizona cut off funding to a health-care provider if it was known some of its directors owned stock in tobacco companies?

Wake also appeared to struggle with the issue of harm, noting that Planned Parenthood argued that if the law takes effect, women using its services would have to find a new health-care provider in the middle of a pregnancy. And if the law went into effect but was blocked by an appeals court, women also could argue they suffered "irreparable harm" because of the lack of service.

Aden said women still have a choice of other providers.

"There is a plethora of providers," Aden said. A woman wouldn't be harmed "if she had to go a few blocks further."